2012 Presidential race

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by Keino

When a thing is owned publicly, who controls it?

Maybe the question isn't resolvable by ownership? I think that would be the response.

At least as things stand, a real socialist isn't going to think that greater government involvement in the economy will solve the problem. Any government that oversees a capitalist economy is a capitalist government, no matter how many welfare programs it enacts. The best it can do is to put a happy face on exploitation.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by justinskins

It's funny to see people who don't know what socialism is debate it. Socialism is coordination of production for the benefit of everyone, not just the capitalist elite. The bottom 60% of the people own only 4% of our country's wealth (although I doubt the number is very different for other industrialized societies), and receive a disproportionately low share of the nation's yearly income, as well. If you're committed to finding a way to upset the apple cart and take the power away from the elites that dominate our material existence, you're a socialist. If not, you're something else (whether a liberal, or a conservative, or whatever). Government control of anything is at most a means to that end and isn't central to the definition.

From an economic/poly sci department

Socialism
A class of ideologies favoring an economic system in which all or most productive resources are the property of the government, in which the production and distribution of goods and services are administered primarily by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which any remaining private production and distribution (socialists differ on how much of this is tolerable) is heavily regulated by the government rather than by market processes. Both democratic and non-democratic socialists insist that the government they envision as running the economy must in principle be one that truly reflects the will of the masses of the population (or at least their "true" best interests), but of course they differ considerably in their ideas about what sorts of political institutions and practices are required to ensure this will be so. In practice, socialist economic principles may be combined with an extremely wide range of attitudes toward personal freedom, civil liberties, mass political participation, bureaucracy and political competition, ranging from Western European democratic socialism to the more authoritarian socialisms of many third world regimes to the totalitarian excesses of Soviet-style socialism or communism.

And I can't find a single definition of it which doesn't heavily involve collective ownership, government ownership, etc of private property.

[RedskinsDave]

Originally Posted by cal_junior

Still don't see the connection to this and Mitt's staff doing a mediocre job of vetting people for his ads.

Nobody thinks taking advantage of government contracts means this guy got "government assistance." He obviously built his own business. But the success of that business seems to be very much connected to the government - in that they were his clients. And that was exactly the point Obama was making.

Vetting what? The accusation by Huffington is stupid and wrong. The guy has a business that was able to win some government contracts. That does nothing to counter the point of the commercial. Now, had he built his business using SBA loans or something like that, there might be a point.

Obama was making the point that you can't build a business without people like him who pontificate and don't actually do stuff. He is wrong.

[Keino]

Originally Posted by justinskins

Maybe the question isn't resolvable by ownership? I think that would be the response.

At least as things stand, a real socialist isn't going to think that greater government involvement in the economy will solve the problem. Any government that oversees a capitalist economy is a capitalist government, no matter how many welfare programs it enacts. The best it can do is to put a happy face on exploitation.

Yea but who is defining Socialism within a Capitalist economy? We were discussing socialism in the context of not being capitalism. Collective ownership is the key point of Socialism and I cannot think of one thing owned by a collective that isn't controlled by the state/government. And by State I mean Nation State, not one of the fifty states of the union.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Meanwhile in news relevant to the campaign: Obama, Romney and Romney's SuperPacs are withdrawing their ads from PA. The polling just isn't moving at all for Romney there, and his approval rating is almost -20 underwater.

Following up on this, Quinnipiac switched over to their likely voter screen(which is supposed to be a slight boost for Romney) and has Romney down 11 in PA. One poll, but this would explain the yanking of ads.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

Obama was making the point that you can't build a business without people like him who pontificate and don't actually do stuff. He is wrong.

Obama's point was simply that Government has a productive role to play in supporting our capitalist system. This is in stark contrast to the teabagger ideology in which Government is viewed as almost never playing a productive role and taxes = theft.

In this case Government is creating the demand for this guy's business to thrive. He is living proof that Government can be a direct stimulus.

It would have been easy for Romney to find a business that doesn't rely heavily on Government contracts. They botched this big time.

[cal_junior]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

Vetting what? The accusation by Huffington is stupid and wrong. The guy has a business that was able to win some government contracts. That does nothing to counter the point of the commercial. Now, had he built his business using SBA loans or something like that, there might be a point.

Obama was making the point that you can't build a business without people like him who pontificate and don't actually do stuff. He is wrong.

You don't seem to understand Obama's point, which is probably why you're having trouble appreciating why this is is a story. More than just the Huffington Post picked it up.

[RedskinsDave]

Originally Posted by cal_junior

You don't seem to understand Obama's point, which is probably why you're having trouble appreciating why this is is a story. More than just the Huffington Post picked it up.

I understand his point completely. Unlike you and the other sycophants, I don't pat the government on its back for being there while belittling the accomplishments of people who build this country.

[Keino]

If you are viewing his comments as belittling the accomplishments of business owners, then no, you don't understand his point. Honestly, I don't even understand why this is controversial. Unless the business is a road contractor, then no, the infrastructure was not built by businesses. It was built by we the people via the government. The interstate system and the maintenance thereof? We the people.

No wonder Washington accomplishes nothing. It is mired in these petty ass debates that mean nothing.

[cal_junior]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

I understand his point completely. Unlike you and the other sycophants, I don't pat the government on its back for being there while belittling the accomplishments of people who build this country.

All a can go by is what you post and thus far you haven't written anything that demonstrates an understanding of the president's point.

[RedskinsDave]

Originally Posted by Keino

If you are viewing his comments as belittling the accomplishments of business owners, then no, you don't understand his point. Honestly, I don't even understand why this is controversial. Unless the business is a road contractor, then no, the infrastructure was not built by businesses. It was built by we the people via the government. The interstate system and the maintenance thereof? We the people.

No wonder Washington accomplishes nothing. It is mired in these petty ass debates that mean nothing.

And people who say stupid things to make stupid points who don't realize how stupid they are followed by people who try to justify the stupid comments.

[RedskinsDave]

Originally Posted by cal_junior

All a can go by is what you post and thus far you haven't written anything that demonstrates an understanding of the president's point.

Water is wet. Tell me it isn't.

[Keino]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

Water is wet.

That's exactly what the President was saying. Apparently this is a controversial and belittling position.

[cal_junior]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

Water is wet. Tell me it isn't.

I'm not sure you're aware whether it's wet or not. At least not based on what you've written in this thread.

[RedskinsDave]

Originally Posted by Keino

That's exactly what the President was saying. Apparently this is a controversial and belittling position.

I understand what he was trying to say. He missed the mark and the fact remains that there was no need to say it in the first place. That's where the disconnect lies between people who run businesses in this country and this president who doesn't have a single clue about it.